Moral law seems to stem from what feels right to a person. Moral is more emotional appeal and sometimes legal positivism crosses with morality. But when I think of moral law, I think of adultery and lying to a loved one. Legal positivism serves the purpose of being beneficial to the whole of society. Moral law would be hard to delegate because people have different morals. What is wrong to some may not be wrong to others. Morality is based on your conscience and some people don’t have consciences or feel guilty all the time. I believe that legal positivism evolved from moral law. People might have felt some things were wrong and they noticed that some of those moral laws could possibly govern the land and keep a state of order. Legal positivism just took a more logical view of the law. It took ideas that can be applied in almost any situation such as don’t steal, don’t murder, etc. The Oresteia follows the laws of that time. Revenge on one’s family was expected. It was the law of the land at the time. I think that morality should be considered when deciding what should be a law. A law is supposed to make each of us equals, laws protects us, even if the individual suffers momentarily. I believe that legal positivism is better for society than a moral law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that moral and positive law need to go hand in hand for a society to succeed. I do not think that legal positivism is necessarily better for society than moral law. Take the example discussed in class today: one crosses a road barrier to save another life; in this case, and in many other, I believe morality trumps positivism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. When looking at the whole picture, legal positivism would be better for society. Now that is not to say that it would not have it's place where positive law would make a mistake. There are certain situations where moral law would probably make a better decision but I think as a whole positive law would be better for society.
ReplyDelete